Court quashed criminal proceedings against petitioner, a vice chairman, under Section 304A IPC for death during contracted demolition work, holding entrustment negated rash/negligent act.
Proceedings in C.C. No.906/2018 against petitioner accused quashed; observations binding only for petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:10043 CRL.P No. 100868 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100868 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. PRABHU S/O BHIMAGOUDA PATIL, AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. FARMER, R/O. AMMANAGI VILLAGE, TALUKA. HUKKERI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KAPAHI BUNTY RAJKUMAR & SRI. PRASAD PATIL, ADVOCATES)
AND:
VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI
Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Date: 2023.09.11 15:45:35 +0530
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SANTOSH S. HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN SANKESHWAR POLICE STATION CRIME NO.111/2018 WHICH IS NUMBERED AS CC NO.906/2018 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SANKESHWAR, FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 304 (A) OF IPC, SO FAR AS THE PRESENT PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 IS CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
- 2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10043 CRL.P No. 100868 of 2022
ORDER
NC: 2023:KHC-D:10043 CRL.P No. 100868 of 2022
a wall at the time of demolition falls upon a workman/labourer, who was working on the site and the said person succumbed to the injuries sustained, due to the fall of the wall. Upon the said incident, a complaint comes to be registered before the jurisdictional Police which becomes a crime in Crime No.111/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the IPC against the three accused. The petitioner is accused No.3. The Police conduct investigation and filed a charge sheet against all the accused and the proceedings are pending in C.C. No.906/2018. Filing of the charge sheet, issuing of summons and continuation of proceedings is what drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:10043 CRL.P No. 100868 of 2022
including the death of the relative/ 2nd respondent, during the demolition. He would submit that the act of the petitioner is neither rash nor negligent, for it to become offence under Section 304A of the IPC.
“[304A. Causing death by negligence.— Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.]”
components to be present, it should be an act, that is rash or negligent, on the part of the accused. The petitioner
being Vice Chairman the Sangh who entrusted the work to the contractor, can neither be said to be performing acts either rash or negligent, in the peculiar facts of this case, as the wall during the demolition, falls on the labourer, and for the fall of the wall, the petitioner cannot be hauled into the proceedings. In the circumstances, reference being made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of the Ambalal D. Bhatt vs. The State of Gujarat reported in (1972) 3 SCC 525 becomes apposite. The Apex Court has held as follows:
“10. It appears to us that in a prosecution for an offence under Section 304-A, the mere fact that an accused contravenes certain rules or regulations in the doing of an act which causes death of another, does not establish that the death was the result of a rash or negligent act or that any such act was the proximate and efficient cause of the death. If that were so, the acquittal of the appellant for contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules would itself have been an answer and we would have then examined to what extent additional evidence of his acquittal would have to be allowed, but since that is not the criteria, we have to determine whether the appellant's act in giving
NC: 2023:KHC-D:10043 CRL.P No. 100868 of 2022
only one batch number to all the four lots manufactured on November 12, 1962, in preparing Batch No. 211105, was the cause of deaths and whether those deaths were a direct consequence of the appellants' act, that is, whether the appellants' act is the direct result of a rash and negligent act and that act was the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another's negligence. As observed by Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap [(1902) 4 Bom LR 679] the act causing the deaths “must be the causa causans; it is not enough that it may have been the cause sine qua non”. This view has been adopted by this Court in several decisions. In Kurban Hussein Mohammedali Rangwala v. State of Maharashtra [(1965) 2 SCR 622] the accused who had manufactured wet paints without a licence was acquitted of the charge under Section 304-A because it was held that the mere fact that he allowed the burners to be used in the same room in which varnish and turpentine were stored, even though it would be a negligent act, would not be enough to make the accused responsible for the fire which broke out. The cause of the fire was not merely the presence of the burners within the room in which varnish and turpentine were stored, though this circumstance was indirectly responsible
NC: 2023:KHC-D:10043 CRL.P No. 100868 of 2022
for the fire which broke out, but was also due to the overflowing of froth out of the barrels. In Suleman Rehiman Mulani v. State of Maharashtra [(1968) 2 SCR 515] the accused who was driving a car only with a learner's licence without a trainer by his side, had injured a person. It was held that that by itself was not sufficient to warrant a conviction under Section 304-A. It would be different if it can be established as in the case of Bhalchandra alias Bapu v. State of Maharashtra [(1968) 3 SCR 766] that deaths and injuries caused by the contravention of a prohibition in respect of the substances which are highly dangerous as in the case of explosives in a cracker factory which are considered to be of a highly hazardous and dangerous nature having sensitive composition where even friction or percussion could cause an explosion, that contravention would be the causa causans.”
accused whether it would be rash or negligent in an accidental fall or an accident that has happened which leads to the death of the victim. The Apex Court held that the act should have direct nexus to the death or which
NC: 2023:KHC-D:10043 CRL.P No. 100868 of 2022
would mean, it should be either rash or negligent, on the part of the accused.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
case of the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It would not bind influence any proceeding pending before any other fora nor would be binding on any other accused in the impugned C.C.
Sd/JUDGE
rsh/ct:bck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, vice chairman who entrusted demolition work to a contractor via resolution, can be prosecuted for causing death by negligence under Section 304A IPC.
Whether the contravention of rules or regulations by the accused is sufficient to establish rash and negligent act proximately causing death.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ambalal D. Bhatt vs. The State of GujaratExplained¶44
Ambalal D. Bhatt vs. The State of Gujarat (1972) 3 SCC 525 · Who else cites this
Kurban Hussein Mohammedali Rangwala v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶47
Kurban Hussein Mohammedali Rangwala v. State of Maharashtra [(1965) 2 SCR 622] · Who else cites this
Suleman Rehiman Mulani v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶50
Suleman Rehiman Mulani v. State of Maharashtra [(1968) 2 SCR 515] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SRI. PRABHU S/O BHIMAGOUDA PATIL
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH SANKESHWAR POLICE STATION
VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI
SHRI. BAJARANG S/O GANGAPPA KHATEDAR
M.NAGAPRASANNA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
